Identifying the role of

artificial intelligence in
students' learning in higher
education

ARSALAN KASHIF

BS-ED-21-22

BS-Education

Department of Education

Bahauddin Zakriya University, Multan

2021-2025
Iden fying the role of ar ficial intelligence in students' learning in
higher educa on

Background
Higher educa on in the 21st century is evolving rapidly, driven by technological
advances, globaliza on, and changing student demographics. Ar ficial intelligence
plays a vital role in upgrading the quality of higher educa on in numerous ways. AI-
powered learning approaches have been employed to evaluate students’
performance records, determine their strengths and weaknesses, and provide them
with learning experiences that are personalized to meet each person's needs. This
approach provides students with a tool kit model to gain knowledge more
effec vely with a produc ve outcome. AI-based technology such as Chatbots,
Virtual Assistance tools, and Adap ve Learning Systems offer immersive and
engaging learning experiences that allow students to discover complex theories and
solu ons in a more interac ve and meaningful manner. In assessment and
feedback, AI assists in grading and appraising student assignments. Similarly, AI-
powered chatbots offer learners immediate and personalized assistance for their
academic and organiza onal needs, such as answering ques ons about course
materials. In higher educa on, persistent challenges such as unequal access, limited
using diversity, and the inadequacy of catering to diverse learning styles pose
significant challenges. Moreover, reliance on tradi onal assessment methods fails
to fully understand students’ knowledge, skills, and prac cal applica on, with
limited tools for assessing and enhancing non-cogni ve skills.

Iden fica on of problem

Iden fying the role of ar ficial intelligence in students' learning in higher
educa on
Jus fica on
Since AI's role is inevitable in future educa on, current research aims to iden fy
faculty members' level of awareness of its applicability and adop on. The study
also intended to discover how AI-enhanced their learning experience and
impacted the degree of work engagement and produc vity of teachers in higher
educa on.

Literature Reviews:
Ar ficial intelligence has been increasingly integrated into various sectors,
including higher educa on. Previous studies explored the use of AI in higher
educa on, including its applica ons, challenges, and opportuni es.

a) Factors that influence a tude toward AI in higher educa on

A tude is one of the major concerns to be adapted to any technology or

system. The literature, as stated by Al Darayseh (2023), iden fied the
significant impact of AI in educa on on the a tude of learners. It is
iden fied that conducive technical advancement and allied infrastructure
support the implementa on of the new system. The sense of facility
condi on in an organiza on controls the behavioral inten on of the
workforce (Venkatesh et al., 2012). A study conducted by van Twillert et al.
(2020) emphasized the role of facili es and infrastructure that influenced
facul es’ a tudes toward adop ng Web 2.0 technologies in higher
educa on. These research findings stress the effec ve facility condi on in
adop ng new technologies in higher educa on.

b) Applica ons of AI in higher educa on

The introduc on of a digitalized learning approach changed the landscape
of the higher educa on system (Khoza & Mpungose, 2022). A study by
Carvalho et al. (2022) explored how society is going to foresee the future of
educa on with a collabora ve approach between learners, teachers, and
AI. One of the primary applica ons of AI in higher educa on is to improve
the learning experience for students (Ge & Hu, 2020). Addi onally (Chang
 et al., 2022; Kelly et al., 2023), iden fied how the adop on of AI has
changed the percep on of society toward educa on. Meanwhile, studies
have raised genuine concern about adop ng AI in educa on by poin ng out
its impact on learners’ and users’ demographic, cultural, and behavioral
issues (Chang et al., 2022). These studies strongly highlighted the
rela onship between AI adop on for society and its influence on users’
a tudes.
c) Applica ons of AI and facul es work engagement

Ar ficial intelligence has the poten al to revolu onize the way teachers
engage with students and perform their roles in higher educa on. AI tools
have been used in many ins tu ons to engage in learning ac vi es more
produc ve way (Cui et al., 2019). The studies emphasized users’ a tudes
toward adop ng AI for personalized professional development, course
design, grading and assessment, and student support (Franzoni et al., 2020;
Rahimi & Tafazoli, 2022). Recent studies explored teachers’ a tudes and
behavior in engaging AI-integrated CRM system and their digital
competencies which enhance work engagement (Cha erjee et al., 2021; Ng
et al., 2023). Further, Moreira-Fontán et al. (2019) explored the posi ve
emo ons and a tudes of academic staff members toward ICT-related
aspects that boost their work engagement. Based on these findings the
rela onship between users’ a tudes and behaviors towards AI on work
engagement is inevitable.

D) In AI-adopted higher educa on, a tudes, and behaviors impact

work engagement:
Work engagements are closely associated with mo va on and enthusiasm
(De Simone et al., 2016). Highly engaged teachers are more likely to accept
innova ons and digitalized teaching approaches (Scherer et al., 2019). Numerous
studies iden fied that work engagement is highly associated with
higher adaptability and resilience in considering digital innova on in higher
educa on (Al-Takhayneh et al., 2022; Antonie et al., 2022). Similarly, a study
quoted by AlAjmi (2022) noted that adop ng digital technology has enhanced
teachers’ work engagement in higher educa on. All these observa ons strongly
emphasize the associa on between work engagement and the adop on of
advanced technology in higher educa on. Considering this broad view of previous
research, the following hypothesis has developed.

E) Big impact on users' a tudes about using AI in higher educa on:

Employees’ awareness of new systems and technology has a significant impact on
their a tude toward effec ve adop on. Porter & Graham, (2016) iden fied how
an effec ve awareness/explora on framework supported ins tu ons to adopt a
blended learning approach in higher educa on. In a similar study, Campillo-Ferrer
& Miralles-Mar nez, (2021) explored systema c awareness and training programs
supported the establishment of flipped classrooms in universi es. Similarly, a
study conducted by Nikou & Maslov, (2023) noted the role of awareness in the
effec ve implementa on of e-learning in higher educa on during a pandemic.
Awareness also played a vital role in implemen ng technology-integrated courses
(Wilson, 2023) and e-learning in higher educa on (Nyathi & Sibanda, 2022).
Considering this outcome and the rela onship of awareness in adap ng new
technology, the following hypothesis is developed.

F) Awareness among faculty has a big impact on a tudes toward AI

adop on in higher educa on:
Perceived risk is the psychological influence on how individuals perceive poten al
uncertain es about the outcomes and ambiguity associated with the use of
technology (Li et al., 2019). According to Gupta & Mathur, (2023), perceived risk
significantly influences the adop on of virtual communica on by educa on
leaders. Several studies for example (Shin et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2022) iden fied
the percep on of facul es while adop ng AI in higher educa on. These studies
highlighted how AI interferes with educa on and the possible risks caused due to
the adop on of this technology. The study conducted by Lei et al. (2022) iden fied
the perceived risk to facul es, staff, and students in higher educa on when
introducing robots in higher educa on. The introduc on of AI in educa onal
ins tu ons is expected to bring uncertainty about how it will influence the job
roles and responsibili es of academic staff members. This role stress could impact
the a tude of facul es towards the adop on of AI in HE. Therefore, the following
hypothesis is developed.

G) A nega ve and significant impact on how they feel about AI

adop on in higher educa on:
Performance expectancy (PE) has been interpreted as users’ percep on of
adop ng a new system and their a ainment of gain in produc vity. Abd Aziz et al.
(2023) applied the UTAUT framework to iden fy students’ PE in adop ng cloud
compu ng higher educa on and explored how techno complexity and insecurity
impact students’ performance expectancy. A similar study by Yip et al. (2021)
iden fied the adop on of mobile library apps in higher educa on for learning has
increased the performance expectancy of students. Further studies like (Diep et
al., 2016; Nikolopoulou et al., 2021) underline the posi ve performance
expectancy of teachers and learners while introducing tech-based teaching
pedagogy and forms of tools in higher educa on. These studies confirm the
rela onship between PE and a tude toward adop ng technology. Therefore, the
following hypothesis developed.

H) The performance expecta ons of instructors influence their

a tude toward integra ng AI in higher educa on:
Effort expectancy (EE) is o en associated with the amount of easiness or
perceived ease of use while adop ng the new system (Venkatesh et al., 2003). As
Zhu & Huang, (2023) iden fied factors like a user-friendly interface, easy-to-use
design, and clear instruc ons contribute to a posi ve a tude in mobile learning.
Similar research by Sarfraz et al. (2022) no fies that effort expectancy significantly
mediates the learner’s a tude in considering technology-based educa on and
learning approaches. Further, Nsamba & Chimbo, (2023) also highlighted that EE
has a posi ve media ng role in adop ng mandatory technology in learning
management systems and learners’ behavior. Therefore, it is a crucial factor that
associates the rela onship between EE and employees’ a tudes toward adop ng
the new system (Liu et al., 2023). Based on this iden fica on, the following
hypothesis is developed.

I) Advanced Analy cal Capabili es:

AI’s applica on goes beyond mere automa on. Machine learning algorithms are
capable of conduc ng intricate content analyses, offering researchers valuable
insights into complex data sets. These capabili es allow researchers to focus on
deeper theore cal and conceptual aspects of their work, thus reshaping how
knowledge is generated and understood (Burger et al., 2023; Müller et al., 2022).

J) Interdisciplinary Research:
AI’s power to analyze diverse datasets across fields facilitates interdisciplinary
collabora on and projects, broadening the scope of research and enriching
academic discourse (Bere a et al., 2021). This interdisciplinary poten al
exemplifies how AI reshapes the boundaries of research.

K) Ethical and Methodological Complexi es:

Despite its advantages, AI also presents ethical and methodological challenges.
Issues like data privacy, the poten al for bias, and the “black box” nature of AI
algorithms raise concerns regarding transparency, consent, and the limita ons of
AI in capturing qualita ve data (Christou, 2023; Ryan et al., 2021). These concerns
emphasize the need for a mul disciplinary discourse to address the ethical
implica ons of AI in research.

L) Epistemological Impact:
AI’s influence extends beyond methods to the very founda ons of knowledge. By
enabling large-scale, complex analyses, AI alters what is considered researchable
and knowable (Bzdok et al., 2019). However, its limita ons in areas like causal
inference and qualita ve analysis—especially in the humani es and social
sciences—underscore the fact that AI cannot yet fully replicate human intellectual
inquiry (Brooks, 2021; Sloane & Moss, 2019).

M) Cogni ve and ethical impacts of higher educa on on AI:

Dealing with ethics in AI is a lecturer in learning science and innova on at the
Ins tute of Educa onal Technology in the UK. Holmes (2018), discussing the
impact of AI on educa on, raised the importance of adop ng ethics in AI
educa on. The same lecturer argues that whether we like it or not, AI is being
deployed in higher ins tu ons worldwide and significantly impacts the future of
higher educa on. Similarly, he adds that by 2024 the global AIED market will be
worth 4.5 billion pounds. Companies such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon
invest millions of dollars in developing AI in educa on (Drabwell, 2018). However,
Holmes (2018) believes that 'adap ve' or 'personalized' ethical learning systems
are not en rely taken into account. He also stressed that there is a 'moral vacuum'
without guidelines, policies, regula ons, or research done to stress the specific
ethical issues raised by AI in educa on (Holmes, 2018). The ques on is not a
ques on of data for him but instead is an issue of morality and that is why he
asks: “How can we be sure that the data are accurate, who owns and controls the
data, and how is student privacy maintained?” According to Holmes (2018), AIED
ethics should not be reduced to ques oning data and controlling the poten al of
bias that is incorporated in AIED computa onal approaches, algorithms, and the
decisions taken by the AI’s deep neural networks that are not quickly inspected
and that he describes as “known unknowns” (Holmes, 2018).” Whether anyone
likes it or not, AI has quietly entered the university campus, but li le a en on has
been paid to ethics. To give just one example, what happens if a student is
subjected to a limited set of algorithms that impact nega vely and incorrectly on
their assessments?” What is inferred from this study is that higher educa on
should give more importance to the ethical part while teaching AI. To address the
ethical issue of AI, and as an example, Open University in the UK conducted
workshops involving researchers around the world on AIED in 2018 at the AI in
Educa on Interna onal Conference. Par cipants considered the importance of
doing empirical work to address systema c biases in learning machine models and
create impenetrable algorithm black boxes and AI ethics-driven courses.
Therefore, Open University started using “Chatbots”, an internet-based program
designed to simulate conversa on with users. Communicates through text
messages through websites, applica ons, or instant messengers to support
students and staff (Drabwell, 2018). Likewise, higher educa on ins tu ons should
think of security and privacy issues. When it comes to AI, these burning issues,
despite the rosy promises of AI humans, have to address this ethical issue, with
intelligent systems monitoring our faces 24 hours a day with only a few elements
of our private lives remaining untouched. Are there legal frameworks, policies, or
ethical codes to control the brutality of AI? Moreover, we should consider robot
cops and their ability to kill and hold them without human ethics. AI raises many
social issues that are more complex than technological ones, such as ethics,
privacy, and inequality, which entails that we need STEM and technology
graduates and graduates who are deeply grounded in humani es and arts. With
liberal arts educa on, intellectual and ethical growth will be an opportunity that
integrates compassion, civic-minded ci zens, responsibility, and ethics.

N) Cogni ve impact of higher educa on on AI:

Thinking cogni vely, AI has made it a present-day reality that imitates humans in
many func ons such as language transla on, medical diagnos cs, and decision-
making. If humans interact, analyze, deduce, think logically, and reason
contextually, AI performs these ac ons ar ficially based on powerful computers,
high-speed internet connec ons, algorithms, and extensive real- me data (Chin,
2018). However, unlike humans’ AI performs fixed and domain-specific tasks with
unmatched learning speed, extensive data, excellent efficiency, and unlimited
compu ng capacity. On the contrary, humans learn flexibly, pose, and solve issues
crea vely, think cri cally, and innovate adap vely (Chin, 2018). Despite the above
facts about humans, AI, deep learning, and ample data supply, AI has surpassed
average human performance in manufacturing automa on and face recogni on.
For example, it is expected to perform enormous tasks (Chin, 2018). Professor
Ronald T Chin relates a story of two robots trained to communicate at a
sophis cated level. They were found later speaking to each other in a language
they had developed, which spooked the scien st and caused him to shut down
the project. Therefore, AI may not be as coopera ve as expected (Chin, 2018).
Here lies the ques on, what have higher educa on ins tu ons done to monitor
and control the cogni ve wilderness of AI? The issue is not crea ng a
sophis cated language that humans would not grasp, but more than that. Even
more astonishing is that their idea of embedding AI in human intelligence is
forthcoming. Scien sts think of hardwiring human brains to implant a neuro-
electronic chip into human heads, enabling communica on via voice or texts
through the cloud to brain signals that connect the internet (Chin, 2018). Recently
in 2017 and in many TV talk shows around the world, a humanoid robot named
Sophia developed in Hong Kong dazzled audiences by officially joining a recent
United Na ons Summit as a panelist to address issues of inequality and said: “The
future is already here. It is not very evenly distributed. If we are smarter and
focused on win-win results, AI could help to efficiently distribute the exis ng
resources of the world, such as food and energy” (Guardian News, 2017). Again,
where is the role of the higher ins tu on in crea ng a boundary for empowering
the AI with highly sophis cated cogni ve skills that transgress the human mind
and frees itself from the human aspect as the robot killer and robot cop and
perhaps much more? Against this tremendous growth in the AI world, one should
not forget that progress has been made by improving people and not improving
machines, as the science fic on author Tchaikovsky (2018) argues. In short, this
statement empowers humans over AI because any cogni ve intelligence AI owns,
first of all, is inherited or programmed by a human mind that can ul mately
control this poten al (Chin, 2018).

N) AI Impact on Future Careers of Graduates:

AI affects the world of educa on, but it also seems restricted to this area and
follows the learner even a er gradua on. For instance, according to Wang and
Siau (2017), AI will impact the future job market of required skill sets. It will
replace many other studies that involve rou ne tasks and structures that are easy
to automate instead of unstructured disciplines that require complex cogni ve
interference (Wang & Siau, 2017). AI or computer assessment is not limited to
grading papers but can be the gateway to a future career. For instance, a human
may not read CVs but be screened by an algorithm specialized in candidate
shortlis ng. As an example, in an ar cle by the Economist en tled “How
algorithms may decide your career: ge ng a job means ge ng past the
computer”, it is reported that the largest firms are now using computer programs
or algorithms to select candidates with an applicant tracking system (ATS) which
can reject up to 75% of candidates. The above policy pushed applicants to use
keywords to maximize screening interests (Brad Rose Consul ng, 2019). Vodafone
and Intel are not sa sfied with shortlis ng CVs but instead use a computer-driven
visual interviews service called “HireVue” to further select candidates. In this
process, AI analyses facial expressions and language pa erns and decides to pass
or fail the applicant (Brad Rose Consul ng, 2019). According to a study by Frey &
Osborne (2013), the number of jobs at risk that will be computerized and include
advances in robo cs and machine learning is roughly 47% of US total employment
(Frey & Osborne, 2013). Likewise, Dizikes (2020) refers to research conducted by
Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Resrego from MIT University that each added robot
replaces 5.6 workers, almost equal to six people (Dizikes, 2020). Similarly, similar
research conducted by Ma & Siau (2018) of Oxford University argues that within
the next 20 years, around 47% of jobs in the United States of America and almost
54% in Europe will be at risk due to AI (Ma & Siau, 2018). Addi onally, the la er
researchers at Oxford University forecast that AI will write high-school essays by
2026, write best-selling books by 2049, translate languages by 2024, and perform
surgeries by 2053. Chin (2018) from Hong Kong University argues that there are
overlooked AI examples or less obvious ones such as transla on machines that
enable you to speak to anyone with any language instantaneously.

References:
Al Darayseh, A. (2023). Acceptance of ar ficial intelligence in teaching science:
Science teachers’ perspec ve. Computers and Educa on: Ar ficial Intelligence, 4,
100132. h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j. caeai.2023.100132
van Twillert, A., Kreijns, K., Vermeulen, M., & Evers, A. (2020). Teachers’ beliefs to
integrate Web 2.0 technology in their pedagogy and their influence on a tude,
perceived norms, and perceived behavior control. Interna onal Journal of
Educa onal Research Open 1, 100014.
h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100014
Pedral Sampaio, R., Aguiar Costa, A., & Flores-Colen, I. (2023). A discussion of
digital transi on impact on facility management of hospital buildings. Facili es,
41(5/6), 389–406. h ps://doi.org/10.1108/F-07-2022- 0092
Khoza, S. B., & Mpungose, C. B. (2022). Digitalised curriculum to the rescue of a
higher educa on ins tu on. African Iden es, 20(4), 310–330. h ps://doi.org/10.
1080/14725843.2020.1815517
Carvalho, L., Mar nez-Maldonado, R., Tsai, Y.-S., Markauskaite, L., & De Laat, M.
(2022). How can we design for learning in an AI world? Computers and Educa on:
Ar ficial Intelligence, 3, 100053.
h ps://doi.org/h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100053
Ge, Z., & Hu, Y. (2020) Innova ve applica on of ar ficial intelligence (AI) in the
Management of higher educa on and teaching. In 2020 Interna onal Conference
on Ar ficial Intelligence and Informa on Technology, ICAIIT 2020. Ins tute of
Physics Publishing. h ps://doi.org/h ps://doi.org/10.1088/1742-
6596/1533/3/032089
Chang, Y., Lee, S., Wong, S. F., & Jeong, S.-P. (2022). AI-powered learning
applica on use and gra fica on: An integra ve model. Informa on Technology &
People, 35(7), 2115–2139. h ps://doi.org/h ps://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-09-2020-
0632
Cui, W., Xue, Z., & Thai, K.-P. (2019). Performance comparison of an AI-based
adap ve learning system in China. In 2018 Chinese Automa on Congress, CAC
2018, pp. 3170–3175. Ins tute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
h ps://doi.org/h ps://doi.org/10.1109/CAC.2018.8623327
Moreira-Fontán, E., García-Señorán, M., Conde-Rodríguez, Á., González, A. (2019).
Teachers’ ICT-related self-efficacy, job resources, and posi ve emo ons: Their
structural rela ons with autonomous mo va on and work engagement.
Computers & Educa on 134, 63–77.
h ps://doi.org/h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.007
Franzoni, V., Milani, A., Mengoni, P., & Piccinato, F. (2020). Ar ficial intelligence
visual metaphors in e-learning interfaces for learning analy cs. Applied Sciences
(Switzerland), 10(20), 1–25. h ps://doi.org/h ps://doi.org/10.3390/app10207195
Cha erjee, S., Rana, N. P., Khorana, S., Mikalef, P., & Sharma, A. (2021). Assessing
organiza onal users’ inten ons and behavior to AI integrated CRM systems: A
meta-UTAUT approach. Informa on Systems Fron ers, 25(4), 1299–1313.
h ps://doi.org/h ps://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10181-1
De Simone, S., Cico o, G., Pinna, R., & Gius niano, L. (2016). Engaging public
servants. Management Decision, 54(7), 1569–1594. h ps://doi.org/10.1108/MD-
02-2016-0072
AlAjmi, M. K. (2022). The impact of digital leadership on teachers’ technology
integra on during the COVID-19 pandemic in Kuwait. Interna onal Journal of
Educa onal Research, 112, 101928.
h ps://doi.org/h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101928
Porter, W. W., & Graham, C. R. (2016). Ins tu onal drivers and barriers to faculty
adop on of blended learning in higher educa on. Bri sh Journal of Educa onal
Technology, 47(4), 748–762. h ps://doi.org/h ps://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12269
Campillo-Ferrer, J. M., & Miralles-Mar nez, P. (2021). Effec veness of the flipped
classroom model on students’ self-reported mo va on and learning during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Humani es and Social Sciences Communica ons, 8(1), 1–9.
h ps://doi.org/h ps://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00860-4
Nikou, S., & Maslov, I. (2023). Finnish university students’ sa sfac on with e-
learning outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interna onal Journal of
Educa onal Management, 37(1), 1–21.
h ps://doi.org/h ps://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2022-0166
Wilson, M. L. (2023). The impact of technology integra on courses on preservice
teacher a tudes and beliefs: A meta-analysis of teacher educa on research from
2007–2017. Journal of Research on Technology in Educa on, 55(2), 252–280.
h ps://doi.org/h ps://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1950085
Nyathi, M., & Sibanda, E. (2022). E-learning: Subs tutability of learner-learner, and
learner–facilitator interac ons to enhance learner sa sfac on in higher educa on.
Journal of Research in Innova ve Teaching & Learning, 16(2), 210–225.
h ps://doi.org/h ps://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-04-2022-0018
Li, J., Li, J., Yang, Y., & Ren, Z. (2021). Design of higher educa on system based on
ar ficial intelligence technology. Discrete Dynamics in Nature & Society, 2021, 1–
11. h ps://doi.org/h ps://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3303160
Gupta, S., & Mathur, N. (2023). Virtual communica on adop on by educa onal
leaders: The modera ng role of perceived risk and benefits. The Interna onal
Journal of Informa on and Learning Technology, 40(3), 242–258.
h ps://doi.org/h ps://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-03-2022-0044
Shin, S., Ha, M., & Lee, J.-K. (2017). High school student percep on of ar ficial
intelligence: Focusing on conceptual understanding, emo on, and risk percep on.
Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum & Instruc on, 17 (21), 289–312.
h ps://doi.org/h ps://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2017.17.21.289

Yip, K. H. T., Lo, P., Ho, K. K. W., & Chiu, D. K. W. (2021). Adop on of mobile library
apps as learning tools in higher educa on: A tale between Hong Kong and Japan.
Online Informa on Review, 45(2), 389–405.
h ps://doi.org/h ps://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-07-2020-0287
Venkatesh, V. (2003). User acceptance of Informa on technology: Toward a
unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27 (3), 425–478.
h ps://doi.org/h ps://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Nsamba, A., & Chimbo, B. (2023). The use of modern technologies in postgraduate
student support in an open learning ins tu on: Are there new cultures emerging?
Cogent Educa on, 10(2), 2270290.
h ps://doi.org/h ps://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2270290
Burger, B., Kanbach, D. K., Kraus, S., Breier, M., & Corvello, V. (2023). On the use of
AI-based tools like ChatGPT to support management research. European Journal
of Innova on Management, 26(7), 233–241. h ps://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-02-
2023-0156
Bere a, V., Desconnets, J.-C., Mougenot, I., Arslan, M., Barde, J., & Chaffard, V.
(2021). A user-centric metadata model to foster the sharing and reuse of
mul disciplinary datasets in environmental and life sciences. Computers &
Geosciences, 154, 104807. h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j. cageo.2021.104807
Ryan, M., Antoniou, J., Brooks, L. D., Jiya, T., Macnish, K., & Stahl, B. C. (2021).
Research and prac ce of AI ethics: A case study approach juxtaposing academic
discourse with organiza onal reality. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(2).
h ps://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00293-x
Bzdok, D., Nichols, T. E., & Smith, S. M. (2019). Towards algorithmic analy cs for
large-scale datasets. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(7), 296–306.
h ps://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0069-5